Gillian owned a nine-hole golf course. She played the course early each morning before it opened for public use, and she routinely did well, except on the fourth hole. For six years, every day two or three of her drives on this hole went far to the right, landing in the backyard of a home owned by Oscar. Oscar often found balls in his backyard, which he sold to passing golfers. He never complained to anyone about the errant golf balls until last week, when one of Gillian’s drives barely missed his head. Oscar then sent a letter to Gillian that read: “Gillian: Stop hitting golf balls into my yard! Sincerely, Oscar.” Gillian then sued Oscar to obtain a declaratory judgment that she had a prescriptive easement to hit golf balls into his backyard.  Assuming that the relevant statutory period is five years, who will win the lawsuit?

For many years, a landowner owned a parcel of land bordered on the west by a public road, and his neighbor owned a parcel of land located immediately to the east of that parcel. The neighbor had an easement to cross the west parcel to enter the public road bordering it. Because the neighbor’s east parcel is surrounded by swampland on the north, south, and east, the only route of ingress to and egress from that parcel over dry land passed through the west parcel. Subsequently, the neighbor sold the east parcel to the landowner, who proceeded to use both lots as a common tract. Last year, the landowner sold the east parcel to his friend. Does the friend have an easement over the landowner’s west parcel? Responses

Sam owned a 50-acre parcel of undeveloped land which adjoined a public highway on its north side.  He often hunted wild turkeys on the north half of his land (“Blueacre”), but he visited the south half (“Greenacre”) only four times over the 20 years that he owned the property.  Beth hoped to purchase Greenacre, in order to build a factory; but this property did not adjoin a public road.  Beth’s friend Fred owned Redacre, a 10-acre parcel of vacant land. The west side of Redacre adjoined Greenacre, and the east side of Redacre adjoined a public road.  Beth asked Fred:  “If I buy Greenacre, can I get access across Redacre?”  Fred replied:  “Yes.”  Beth then bought Greenacre for $100,000.  When she arrived at Redacre the next day, she found that Fred had installed “No Trespassing” signs all around the property.  Beth ignored the signs.  For two years, she regularly traveled between Greenacre and the public road by crossing Redacre, further developing her factory plans.  Beth then received a letter from Fred which read:  “Beth:  Sorry, but I’m going to sell Redacre, so you can’t cross it in the future.   Cordially, Fred.”  Under traditional law, which of the following theories is most likely to provide Beth with a legal right to access Greenacre?

A developer owned a 30-acre tract of farmland. As required by law, the developer filed a plat with the county planning board, but did not record it. The plat divided the parcel into 87 one-third-acre residential lots. A one-acre strip on the eastern edge of the parcel that abutted a busy highway was set aside for commercial development. The plat restricted each lot to a single residence and banned all “nonconforming detracting structures or appurtenances,” including “free-standing flagpoles more than six feet in height, television antennas and receiving equipment of excessive size and obtrusiveness, and windmills.” The restrictive clause was put into the deeds of all the residential lots in the subdivision, except for the deeds to lots 23, 24, and 25. This oversight was due to an error by the developer’s secretary. All the other lots had deeds stating that the restriction applied “to the grantee and his or her heirs and assigns.” A homeowner purchased lot 24 and duly recorded her deed in the office of the county recorder of deeds. The developer’s salesperson had orally informed the homeowner of the general restrictions applicable to lots in the subdivision. A year later, a sports bar purchased the one-acre commercial strip and installed a large satellite dish. Two years later, the homeowner sold her property to a buyer. The homeowner never mentioned any of the restrictions to the buyer. The buyer put a satellite dish on top of his house. His dish was not as large as the bar’s dish, but it was obviously bigger than any of his neighbors’ modest antennas. The owners of 15 lots in the subdivision sue the buyer, demanding that he remove the dish. If the court finds for the buyer, what is the likely reason?

If you are using your own calculator, hold your permissible calculator up to the webcam, so its front/model number is clearly visible. If you are not using a permissible calculator, regardless of your uploaded pdf’s content, your Worksheet Grade will be a 0.

With your webcam, show BOTH sides of your blank answer sheet, to the camera.

A seller contracted to convey her property to a buyer for $75,000. A title search revealed the following: (i) There were 25 years left on a lease of the property, which was recorded. The buyer agreed to take title subject to the lease but was not aware that the lease gave the lessee, his heirs, and assigns an option to purchase the land at any time before the end of the lease period. (ii) The roof of the garage on the property extended approximately one-half inch across the property line into the airspace of an adjoining neighbor. The garage did not interfere with any current or future use of the adjoining lot. (iii) The home on the property was subject to a $5,000 lien arising from a dispute involving some remodeling work. The seller promised to pay off the lien at closing with the proceeds from the sale. (iv) The property was subject to an easement by necessity in favor of the adjoining neighbor. Last month, the city extended the main road to the neighbor’s land, but the neighbor planned to continue to use the easement because it was more convenient. In a jurisdiction that has a standard race-notice recording statute and maintains the common law Rule Against Perpetuities without any modern statutory reformation, which encumbrance renders the seller’s title unmarketable?

“Every conveyance of real estate not recorded shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser in good faith and for a valuable consideration of the same real estate whose conveyance first is recorded.” This statute is an example of which type of recording act?

A landowner sustained injuries in a boating accident that required an extended hospital stay. During his absence, a trespasser entered into a contract with an accountant to purchase the landowner’s land. The trespasser forged the landowner’s signature on a quitclaim deed, which the accountant promptly and properly recorded. Two months later, the accountant received notice that he was being transferred, so he conveyed the land to a buyer by a general warranty deed. The buyer promptly and properly recorded the deed. The following month, the landowner returned to his land and ejected the buyer. The jurisdiction in which the land is located has the following statute: “No unrecorded conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value without notice unless the conveyance is recorded.” Under which of the following theories is the buyer most likely to have a remedy?

Bob borrowed money from four lenders; each loan was evidenced by a promissory note and secured by a mortgage on Bob’s ranch. Bob first borrowed $50,000 from Lana, who recorded the mortgage; Bob then borrowed $100,000 from Leonard, who recorded the mortgage; Bob next borrowed $70,000 from Lisa, who failed to record the mortgage; and Bob finally borrowed $50,000 from Logan, who failed to record the mortgage. Leonard foreclosed his mortgage when Bob failed to make loan payments. The highest bidder at the foreclosure sale obtained title to the property for $200,000. Assume that this is a notice jurisdiction.  How should the sales proceeds be distributed?